4 ms·

"Critics say one problem with the FAA's current policy – that amateurs can fly drones below 400 feet but commercial operators cannot – is that it doesn't seem t

by dmckeon 13y ago

"Critics say one problem with the FAA's current policy – that amateurs can fly drones below 400 feet but commercial operators cannot – is that it doesn't seem to address any specific safety concerns." The critics may not realize that this restriction largely has the effect of separating drone air traffic from air traffic containing humans, which is generally limited to 500 feet above ground, modulo take, landing, and, as always, emergencies. http://www.flightsimaviation.com/data/FARS/part_91-119.html http://www.flightsimaviation.com/data/FARS/part_91-119.html

platz 13y ago
the problem isn't with the height, it's with the distinction between commercial and amatuer.
tlb 13y ago
There's a difference of scale. The number of drones that amateurs could keep aloft while maintaining line-of-sight is small, but large-scale commercial activity could put millions of them up. Of course, there are billions of birds flying around so it's probably manageable.
- GauntletWizard 13y ago
  I'd love to have a pretty simple law: Wingspan below 2m, total weight below 6Kg, flys with out restriction under 500m (aside from normal property damage laws and exclusion zones). Those numbers are based on the Bald Eagle, one of the bigger but still relatively common birds around America.
bri3d 13y ago
I think you've inverted the meaning of that sentence. The intent was to point out that it's odd that amateurs can fly but commercial operators cannot, not that the 400 foot rule does not address specific safety concerns. I agree that drones should be regulated, having built (and crashed) a lot of them over the last four years. However, the current regulatory environment is effectively "it's OK if you're an individual and you abide by these vague guidelines for R/C planes that have been widely flaunted since their introduction 20+ years ago, but if you take a single dollar for it, we're after you." That doesn't really make sense - drones don't get more dangerous the second someone takes money to fly them. Most commercial drone uses I've seen are for media (TV, realty/house videos, YouTube, advertisements, etc.) and tend to be conducted more cautiously and by more experienced operators than the random techies with flyaway-prone DJI gear who have popped up over the last year or so.
- markdown 13y ago
  > That doesn't really make sense Capitalism, man. Without a financial incentive, you dramatically reduce the use of drones. Approve commercial usage and you'll have dozens of drones flying around after every celebrity and politician everywhere they go. Businesses will have drones hovering outside their doors all day with CCTV. Intersections and major roads will have a few drones above them monitoring traffic. How about a reality show based on filming what goes on in backyards in suburbs all over the country. "Oooh look a pool party... lets hover around streaming this over the internet, there's sure to be some nudity or a drunk fight eventually".
  - bri3d 13y ago
    I agree that without regulation, "approved" commercial drone usage could spiral out of control into the drone-dystopia you suggest. I'm just amused by the the bizarre nature of the current regulation: amateurs regularly flaunt the supposed current guidelines (as they have been for 20+ years) and the FAA turns a blind eye until a single dollar is passed. This kind of psuedo-regulation makes little sense and results in all kinds of hilarious (and equally illegal) workarounds. I once met a commercial drone operator who sold footage for TV by posting it anonymously on random video-upload sites, having the show producers "find" it, and then taking a kickback somewhere else for an "unrelated" job.
- dmckeon 13y ago
  Good point. The FAA has long made strong distinctions between private (amateur/sport) and commercial operations, and I would expect that the risk/reward balance is at the heart of their initial rationale. That said, does their current stance on commercial vs. amateur drones stem from reasoning, institutional momentum, or a desire to get a lot of drone-relating rule-making resolved before opening the door to commercial drone operations? ps - if ever we get to having flying cars, we will have a similar set of discussions.

by dmckeon 13y ago

platz 13y ago

the problem isn't with the height, it's with the distinction between commercial and amatuer.

tlb 13y ago

There's a difference of scale. The number of drones that amateurs could keep aloft while maintaining line-of-sight is small, but large-scale commercial activity could put millions of them up. Of course, there are billions of birds flying around so it's probably manageable.

GauntletWizard 13y ago
I'd love to have a pretty simple law: Wingspan below 2m, total weight below 6Kg, flys with out restriction under 500m (aside from normal property damage laws and exclusion zones). Those numbers are based on the Bald Eagle, one of the bigger but still relatively common birds around America.

bri3d 13y ago

I think you've inverted the meaning of that sentence. The intent was to point out that it's odd that amateurs can fly but commercial operators cannot, not that the 400 foot rule does not address specific safety concerns. I agree that drones should be regulated, having built (and crashed) a lot of them over the last four years. However, the current regulatory environment is effectively "it's OK if you're an individual and you abide by these vague guidelines for R/C planes that have been widely flaunted since their introduction 20+ years ago, but if you take a single dollar for it, we're after you." That doesn't really make sense - drones don't get more dangerous the second someone takes money to fly them. Most commercial drone uses I've seen are for media (TV, realty/house videos, YouTube, advertisements, etc.) and tend to be conducted more cautiously and by more experienced operators than the random techies with flyaway-prone DJI gear who have popped up over the last year or so.

markdown 13y ago
> That doesn't really make sense Capitalism, man. Without a financial incentive, you dramatically reduce the use of drones. Approve commercial usage and you'll have dozens of drones flying around after every celebrity and politician everywhere they go. Businesses will have drones hovering outside their doors all day with CCTV. Intersections and major roads will have a few drones above them monitoring traffic. How about a reality show based on filming what goes on in backyards in suburbs all over the country. "Oooh look a pool party... lets hover around streaming this over the internet, there's sure to be some nudity or a drunk fight eventually".
- bri3d 13y ago
  I agree that without regulation, "approved" commercial drone usage could spiral out of control into the drone-dystopia you suggest. I'm just amused by the the bizarre nature of the current regulation: amateurs regularly flaunt the supposed current guidelines (as they have been for 20+ years) and the FAA turns a blind eye until a single dollar is passed. This kind of psuedo-regulation makes little sense and results in all kinds of hilarious (and equally illegal) workarounds. I once met a commercial drone operator who sold footage for TV by posting it anonymously on random video-upload sites, having the show producers "find" it, and then taking a kickback somewhere else for an "unrelated" job.
dmckeon 13y ago
Good point. The FAA has long made strong distinctions between private (amateur/sport) and commercial operations, and I would expect that the risk/reward balance is at the heart of their initial rationale. That said, does their current stance on commercial vs. amateur drones stem from reasoning, institutional momentum, or a desire to get a lot of drone-relating rule-making resolved before opening the door to commercial drone operations? ps - if ever we get to having flying cars, we will have a similar set of discussions.